The Canon EOS R3 will be 24mp, confirmed by EXIF data

[Cyborx]

An R6 with a built-in battery grip.
Well done Canon!

We need a mirrorless pro body with at least 45 mpix and at least 15fps.
How hard is that? Do I speak japanese?
Who wants an R6 in a pro body? Yeah, eye controlled autofocus.. Yeey!

C’mon...

 

[degos]

Given that the 1DX iii is 20Mpx and there appears to be no complaints from the customers.

I know several people, myself included, who decided not to upgrade to the 1DX3 because it didn't offer a resolution bump.

So there's a selection bias in that statement. Customers might have been happy with 20MP but other potential customers were lost.

 

[Bahrd]

An R6 with a built-in battery grip.
Well done Canon!

We need a mirrorless pro body with at least 45 mpix and at least 15fps.
How hard is that? Do I speak japanese?
Who wants an R6 in a pro body? Yeah, eye controlled autofocus.. Yeey!

C’mon...

Search results: it looks like you have just reinvented a canon (No. 14)...

 

[kaihp]

20%...OUCH!!

And I've been compiling about 10% sales tax down here in the New Orleans area.

25% VAT says hello from Denmark, Norway and Sweden*.

*) Sweden has a differentiated VAT rate, e.g. food has a lower rate

 

[tjphoto]

1DXMkiii doesn’t do 30 FPS with electronic shutter and flash . R5, R6 don’t do it either . I will buy this camera for this feature alone.

 

[stevelee]

People want 30 fps for stills, but 24 fps for movies, according to threads here. That reminds me a bit of folks who put their thermostats on 68 in the summer and 78 in the winter.

 

[RayValdez360]

The R3 very much feels like how the R was to the R5/R6. Is Canon’s opportunity to test some concepts for a pro-body e.g size, button placement, flip screen and eye controlled autofocus. Very much feels that there will be no MKII version of this camera, just like the original EOS3. Having said that I still think that it will be a great camera to use, with some trade offs, just like the R.

Now that we know most of the specifications and assuming that the 24mp sensor is correct, what are people’s feeling on price? My guess that in US market we are going to see annouced at $5499, that will give space for Canon to price an eventual R1 at $6899.

A proto

He is still focusing on stutter speed.

the guy can shoot whataver way he wants as long as he gets the shots and look good. A lot of real world real life photogs arent settings nazis. Get the shot and keep it moving.

 

[AlanF]

People want 30 fps for stills, but 24 fps for movies, according to threads here. That reminds me a bit of folks who put their thermostats on 68 in the summer and 78 in the winter.

That's no joke. In my post-doc year in the Boston area, the lab was freezing in the summer, and I had to wear a sweater, and baking in the winter.

 

[stevelee]

My question may be theoretical, but it could become real with an attractive option and if I get in a buying mood.

My current thinking is that if I am in splurge mode and want to get some camera equipment that might be enough of an upgrade to bother with, rather than sinking $10,000ish on an R5 or R3 or R1 and some more lenses, I would consider medium format. That would be mainly for landscapes and such. So what might be worth the trouble for me to look at? This is not just wild fantasy on my part, so I won't consider cameras that start at $19,995 or close to that. Let's call it a tame fantasy for now. I'm not looking to hijack this thread, or even start one of my own, since it is not relevant to this board, except for comparison purposes. But a few links to guide me into foreign territory for me would be appreciated. Google has not led me well. Even a short essay on why you abandoned your Hasselblad for a Canon RP might not be amiss, either.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

My question may be theoretical, but it could become real with an attractive option and if I get in a buying mood.

My current thinking is that if I am in splurge mode and want to get some camera equipment that might be enough of an upgrade to bother with, rather than sinking $10,000ish on an R5 or R3 or R1 and some more lenses, I would consider medium format. That would be mainly for landscapes and such. So what might be worth the trouble for me to look at? This is not just wild fantasy on my part, so I won't consider cameras that start at $19,995 or close to that. Let's call it a tame fantasy for now. I'm not looking to hijack this thread, or even start one of my own, since it is not relevant to this board, except for comparison purposes. But a few links to guide me into foreign territory for me would be appreciated. Google has not led me well. Even a short essay on why you abandoned your Hasselblad for a Canon RP might not be amiss, either.

FUJIFILM GFX100 | Cameras | FUJIFILM X Series & GFX – Global

FUJIFILM X Series & GFX – Global official site.

fujifilm-x.com

Fujifilm GFX 100 Medium Format Mirrorless Camera

Come celebrate your Fujifilm GFX 100 Medium Format Mirrorless Camera and your favorite Fujinon lenses! :) Be cool! :)

www.flickr.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's no joke. In my post-doc year in the Boston area, the lab was freezing in the summer, and I had to wear a sweater, and baking in the winter.

In commercial buildings, having it be cooler in the summer saves energy, even though that sounds counterintuitive.

Years ago, in a then-new building built in 2004, we were warned they needed to turn off the heat for a couple of weeks the following summer for a major repair. As a building full of scientists, we were unconcerned – who needs heat in a Boston summer?

Turns out that we did. The engineers explained that because of the humidity of the incoming air, it was chilled to 50 °F / 10 °C to dehumidify the air, which was then warmed back up to a comfortable temperature. Outside air always has to be used in lab buildings, air cannot be recirculated. No heat meant it got really cold in the building (being pharma, they gave us all nice sweatshirts with the company logo and the tag line, “We’ve got drug discovery down cold,” and into work we went).

I suspect that’s why commercial buildings where dry air is required are cooler in summer – less heat reduces overhead costs.

 

[AlanF]

In commercial buildings, having it be cooler in the summer saves energy, even though that sounds counterintuitive.

Years ago, in a then-new building built in 2004, we were warned they needed to turn off the heat for a couple of weeks the following summer for a major repair. As a building full of scientists, we were unconcerned – who needs heat in a Boston summer?

Turns out that we did. The engineers explained that because of the humidity of the incoming air, it was chilled to 50 °F / 10 °C to dehumidify the air, which was then warmed back up to a comfortable temperature. Outside air always has to be used in lab buildings, air cannot be recirculated. No heat meant it got really cold in the building (being pharma, they gave us all nice sweatshirts with the company logo and the tag line, “We’ve got drug discovery down cold,” and into work we went).

I suspect that’s why commercial buildings where dry air is required are cooler in summer – less heat reduces overhead costs.

My year was 1968-69 in a crummy building with no dehumidification in the summer and huge heat loss in the winter. Modern labs are superb. My present one is a work of art as well as needing very complex programming to run the heating and airflow.

 

[highdesertmesa]

I don't think this is firmware related but sensor hardware architecture related.

1) This kind of sensors with multiple raw sizes like for example 7D, 5D mark II, 5D mark III used to have, do not exist anymore. Except the recent cameras like 6D mark II for example, that still use old sensors (single gain), this camera still have multiple raw resolutions, but worse dynamic range.
Since they added dual gain to sensors (since 1D X mark II), multiple resolutions in RAW mode have disappeared.
So until this moment you either have multiple raw resolution or better dynamic range, you cannot have both.

2) Also confirmed by electron microscopy analysis of a single gain sensor (1D X)

Chipworks Reviews Canon DSLR Sensors

Source of knowledge Engineering and information technology.

eng-info-tech.blogspot.com

"additional transistor connecting FD in three rows is used for binning"

3) The resolution of raw video mode of cameras like R5 is only in the 8K mode not also in 4K mode. The 8K mode is a 1:1 pixel read of the sensor at 16:9 aspect ratio, so there are only some skipped rows at the botton and top of the sensor, there is no binning involved.

--
But is still possible to have good multiple resolutions in JPEG mode, this is good enough for sport photographers. For example Sony A1 (50Mpx) can shot JPEG at 21 and 12 Mpx. Canon R5 (45Mpx) can shot JPEG at 22, 12 and 4 Mpx.

Yes, sensor-based but resolution is selectable in firmware. The Leica M11 is rumored to have a new 60mp BSI sensor that will shoot in three resolution modes. And since Canon is designing their own new BSI sensor, they may have found a way around any downsides.

 

[sanj]

I know several people, myself included, who decided not to upgrade to the 1DX3 because it didn't offer a resolution bump.

So there's a selection bias in that statement. Customers might have been happy with 20MP but other potential customers were lost.

Yes, true.

 

[Cyborx]

So you pay 6000 for a R6 + 10fps extra ... Whatever rocks your boat peeps!

If it is definitely 24 mpix, I’ll wait for the R1 ... but my patience is being tested on a scale beyond belief.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

FUJIFILM GFX100 | Cameras | FUJIFILM X Series & GFX – Global

FUJIFILM X Series & GFX – Global official site.

fujifilm-x.com

Fujifilm GFX 100 Medium Format Mirrorless Camera

Come celebrate your Fujifilm GFX 100 Medium Format Mirrorless Camera and your favorite Fujinon lenses! :) Be cool! :)

www.flickr.com

There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.

 

[Sporgon]

There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.

For someone really requiring resolution - and that means an output size large enough to see that increase, sensor size wins every time. As has been mentioned in other treads, virtually no one is outputting at that kind of size, and for those that do it will be the exception not the rule.

 

[AlanF]

There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.

It does outresolve the R5 with a 3.76µ pixel pitch compared with 4.39µ.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.

The lens selection for GFX is quite limited though, and overall cost will still be much higher than an R5 with a EF trinity.

 

[stevelee]

There even is a "GFX 100S", which costs "only" $5,999 which probably makes it cheaper than the R3. Some reviews suggest the GFX 100S is even better than the GFX 100 is some regards. It has the same sensor size and the same 102 megapixel resolution. Even the lenses for the GFX are not terribly expensive. So for somebody who does not shoot sports and wants a high resolution, the GFX 100S might be a much better option than than any RF camera Canon has to offer or might offer later this year.

Yes, I could get a lens or two and still be under $10,000. For my purposes it definitely seems a better choice than getting into the RF cameras. But it would be such a splurge for my limited use that I'll really have to be in the right mood to buy (mainly a dreary one: deciding that life is too short to forego having the camera, and why should I care about having an extra $10K in my estate). I would still use my Canon gear as much as ever for most things. The 100S would be for additional landscape shooting mostly. A Zeiss monochrome camera might be a good choice for that instead. Or maybe just get the 24mm TS-E for my inner desire to be Ansel Adams. I realize I'm thinking of compensating myself for not traveling since March 12, 2020, using the money I would have spent. I have used photography as a way to try to stay sane during this time, and have shot locally. I get assignments to shoot for the neighborhood newsletter, and those can be fun, like shooting the doll houses made by a woman down the street. I may be the third best photographer in the neighborhood. My only anticipated big purchase will be when the new larger iMac comes out.